harrypotterfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Gilderoy Lockhart
Is Gilderoy Lockhart American? I remembere reading somewhere that he is an american 05:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC) ghb : Nope, all the characters seen are British, unless their nationality is explicitly mentioned. --[[User:Cubs Fan2007|'Cubs Fan2007']] [[User talk:Cubs Fan2007|'(Message me)']] 06:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Lockhart´s house? It is never mentioned in the books, but, doesn´t he wear the Hufflepuff symbol on his clothes in the second film, during the duelling club? Or was it the Hogwarts crest?--Rodolphus 18:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Doesn´t anyone know? I can´t idendify it.--Rodolphus 13:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC) :Do you mean the pale blue quilted vest? The crest on that appears to be Lockhart's own, as it's got a "G" in the middle, which presumably stands for Gilderoy. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 14:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Thast´s what I meant. Couldn´t iz also mean Gryffindor? It´s golden-coloured.--Rodolphus 14:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Another possibility: In Harry Potter and Chamber of Secrets (video game), PC, we can see him with the Ravenclaws.--Rodolphus 14:42, September 22, 2009 (UTC) :::How does being around other Ravenclaws mean that he was in Ravenclaw when he went to school? Is there any canonical proof, anywhere that confirms he was in Ravenclaw when he was a student? It's just that consiering his attributes I have a hard time believing the sorting hat would put him in Ravenclaw. He himself says that the only spell he was ever good at was the memory charm, and as far as the G standing for Gryffindor, no way, he isn't at all brave and definitely wouldn't stick his neck out for others. I would guess either Hufflepuff or Slytherin. --BachLynn23 19:18, July 27, 2010 (UTC) The film shows him with Ravenclaw quidditch robes (as stated in the article) so it is cannon.--Rodolphus 19:21, July 27, 2010 (UTC) /* Needed Typo Fix: */ In the part about his Hogwarts Career, the end of the paragraph concerning Harry says "these ridiculous hypothesis." These is a plural form, and thus it should be changed to hypothesEs, not the singular hypothesis. Please correct this, someone. Brainheil 22:36, November 2, 2009 (UTC) I seriously don't think that the color of his quidditch robes in some obscure photo seen in the movie is enough to make an assumption of his house. --TheOtherMinister I agree, especially as it's in a black-and-white photo! Ztyran 00:08, November 23, 2010 (UTC) :It isn't about the colours of his quidditch robes, if you look closely at the patch on the robes there is a Raven. Which is the patch for Ravenclaws. At least in the movies. --BachLynn (Accio!) 00:23, November 23, 2010 (UTC) Several problems there: 1. That is simply your and your opinion is not what matters. What matters are the canon facts and there is every canonical indication that he was in Ravenclaw, therefore we must accpet him as being in that house. This also goes for that comment earlier about "I doubt we can take a random film photos word for it", especially since JK is consulted on these things. 2. You have trouble believing that? Erm, while it may have been highly unethical his scheme to steal the fame and fortune of the people he obliviated was pretty crafty; in fact, if it wasn't for that broken wand he would likely never have been caught. It was a very smart thing to do and hence very Ravenclaw (houses aren't all good or bad after all). 3. You think Hufflepuff was likely? They value fair play and justice. What he built his career upon in no way reflects that. Therefore, we shoudl mark him as Ravenclaw—Green Zubat 21:12, August 15, 2011 (UTC) The fact is that he was a fraud through and through, he took credit for things he didn't do and represented himself as things he was'' not''. Regardless of what house he was in, it's entirely possible and more than likely that he just put on the Ravenclaw robes for the photographic opportunity and that he also likely never even played Quidditch. If this picture was really'' true'', then why isn't it a younger actor/"Young Gilderoy", like the rest of the entire Harry Potter movie series has done with the photographs (save for Lily Potter in Slughorns Slug Club photo)? Chalking it up to "house pride"? This was present-day Gilderoy Lockhart in a student's robes. And why are we taking a Christopher Columbus movie as "canon"? JKR might be consulted on these things, but obviously she wasn't consulted on a load of things Columbus did contrary to her wishes (she wanted all British actors; she didn't get all British actors for the first two movies, the ones that Columbus wrecked...she insisted that Harry and Ginny were the soulmates, but Kloves was such a Harmonian that he didn't care and kept putting in little Harry/Hermione bits, like that tent scene in Hallows 1). What we should do is not mark his house as anything until next year when Rowling puts out the real canon information on Pottermore, lest this site look erroneous because it's making assumptions based on the movies, which were not written by JKR. They're adaptations of her work, and there will be screwups in them. I'm not going to correct it/I'll leave it alone, but I'm waiting for Rowling to put up Lockhart's bio in the next Pottermore book. ParryHotterHero 18:06, September 11, 2011 (UTC) Funny. Last night, I had a dream about going to HMV and coming across 2 Lockhart pop vinyls, one of him as a Gryffindor and another of him as a Hufflepuff. Beverlyjones (talk) 13:05, December 30, 2018 (UTC) Lockhart Card Irony Ok, remember the chocolate frog cards in real life? well, I was lucky(?) enough to get a Gilderoy Lockhart card. The text on the back back says: "Prolific author with wavy blonde hair and forget-me-not blue eyes..." See what they did there? Just thought it was a cool little tidbit. Not sure if it's canon. :Haha. Nice tidbit. It would be canon, since it's from an official source (movie merchandise). By the way, could you upload any scans of the chocolate frog card? -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 02:00, July 13, 2010 (UTC) :I have the Lockhart card. Do you still need it, Seth? AlastorMoody 00:27, July 30, 2011 (UTC) ::It would be nice to add that to the article. Can you upload scans from the front and back of the card? -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 00:32, July 30, 2011 (UTC) ::Well wait one minute! I thought you two were talking about the Quirrell card.... Lol.... So sorry about that, Seth. But anyway, possibly you could still use the Quirrell one? Dunno. Sorry about the mix up :( :S AlastorMoody 03:24, August 9, 2011 (UTC) ::And here we are... Front of the Quirrell Card as well as the Back of the Quirrell Card. AlastorMoody 03:22, August 9, 2011 (UTC) :::Might just be me, but both of those links 404. Might want to upload them to the wiki directly or some external site. Ordona 04:49, August 9, 2011 (UTC) ::: :::Sorry, I wasn't sure how to upload it to the wiki since it said to put in the URL of the site on which the pictures were, so that was the only way I could do it. I can go to it, but that's probably because it's a Gmail URL, and you'd probably have to be on my Gmail account to see it >.> Sorry about that. You can see the front of the card at: Bewitched Snowballs . AlastorMoody 20:57, August 15, 2011 (UTC) ::::You can upload pictures from your drive using this page. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 21:27, August 15, 2011 (UTC) ::::My apologies... AGAIN! It just so happens that I DO have the Lockhart card (not the Quirrell, I'm certain this time ;) ) Do you still need the card, Seth... again? AlastorMoody 05:33, August 31, 2011 (UTC) hair??? it is said that his hair is orangeish and not blonde is it true because in d pic his hair is orange N77 11:17, September 30, 2010 (UTC) :In the book, it's specified that Lockhart is blond "There was a big photograph on the front of a very good-looking wizard with wavy blond hair and bright blue eyes." chapter 3 hp2 / pic is an actor's pic, it could contradict slighly infos given in books. -- 11:43, September 30, 2010 (UTC) Gilderoy's last book I still think we should some marker on Who Am I? as it's only seen after the credits, and isn't in the movie proper even if it doesn't conflict with book canon. Ztyran 23:38, October 8, 2010 (UTC) Question? In the PC version of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Lockhart is caught by Harry and Ron and says "I was just getting my broom warmed up to go!" Can this be considered cannon to his alledged flying skills as no higher cannon directly contradicts it? :Ah, I was not aware of this when I reverted your edit. Feel free to re-add it. My apologies. Perhaps citing your source for that would help ease confusion. -- 1337star (talk) 04:53, October 29, 2011 (UTC) Birthday I'd say Lockhart was born on 26 January. This test (from which comes the 26 January birthdate) seems to be Hermione's test, which we know had full marks, as it coincides with the answers she gave. Now, this one, from which comes the 12 December birthday, has some wrong questions, making it lose some credibility (i.e. it says his ideal birthday gift would be a flower when that is, in fact, wrong). -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 00:20, October 31, 2011 (UTC) :Could have sworn I replied to this before. Yes, I agree the 26 January date comes from a more correct test than the 12 December one. -- 1337star (talk) 00:31, October 31, 2011 (UTC) ::Good catch. I agree that the January 26 test is supposed to be Hermione's. Thus I think that birthdate should be treated as canon until it's contradicted by new information from Pottermore (I'm predicting the characters who get background info for CoS on Pottermore will be Molly, Arthur, and Lockhart). ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 05:18, November 1, 2011 (UTC) :Should we make the necessary changes, then? -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 16:08, November 1, 2011 (UTC) Gilderoy's Boggart? i don't think we have any reliable information that his boggart truley is lord voldemort (on lego harry potter 1-4 everybody and their mother's boggart is voldemort) i don't think lego harry potter is a very reliable source of info mainly because itsays almost everyone' boggart is voldemort (even those who have never seen voldemort) 02:38, February 22, 2012 (UTC) :No offense, but it doesn't matter what you think. The LEGO games are considered a canon source by the wiki, and thus his Boggart is Voldemort. -- 1337star (Owl Post) 02:56, February 22, 2012 (UTC) Notes and references Alright, I don't know what's going on and it's starting to chap my hide because I'm normally pretty good with code, but this is defeating me. For some reason, only the last three references are showing in the Notes and references section of the article. Everything else just isn't there and no matter what I try, I can't get them to show up. I need a fresh pair of eyes - could somebody please take a look and see if they can figure out why they aren't showing up? Apparently it's been like that for at least a month without anyone noticing. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:27, January 3, 2013 (UTC) : I think I got it fixed. It looks like the "media" section (this edit) made by somehow blocked all the refs. I've removed it, and the refs should all be there. --[[User:Cubs Fan2007|'Cubs Fan']] [[User talk:Cubs Fan2007|'(Talk to me)']] 04:14, January 3, 2013 (UTC) :: See talk page reply. This is okay as a stopgap, but not ideal, as that section was added specifically by Wikia, at no small cost of time. So while it's good to know what's causing the problem, I'd hate to have to just remove it. I've contacted Gcheung to see if he might know how to solve this without having to remove it. In the meantime, I think I'll try playing around with it myself... ProfessorTofty (talk) 04:24, January 3, 2013 (UTC) ::: Fixed! It was just a bit of bad coding - "gallery widths" instead of "gallery width." Once I fixed that, all of the references were back. ProfessorTofty (talk) 04:27, January 3, 2013 (UTC) House, Part 2 I know the article marked him as a Ravenclaw, but that's based purely on a bird seen on some robes he was wearing in a picture. Others before me have suggested he might have been in other Houses, and whilst I'll gladly accept that he's in Ravenclaw any day, I do think it's possible he might have been in Gryffindor: #When Lockhart pulls Harry up to the front, Snape immediately suggests someone from his own House, mirroring Lockhart and Snape; it's possible, ever so slightly, that this was because Lockhart was in Gryffindor. #He wears a golden crest with a capital "G"; although some people believe it stands for "Gilderoy", an indication of his self-centredness, it might also be for "Gryffindor". #It would certainly take a lot of nerve to blast somebody in the face with a Memory Charm right after they've told you their life story and about how they've done some truly complicated magic, and Gryffindor are renowned for bravery and nerve. #The Ravenclaw Quidditch robes feature an adult Lockhart; some might chalk this up to mere house pride, but I really think that it was staged - he might not even have been in Ravenclaw to begin with, much less on the Quidditch team. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 17:26, July 12, 2013 (UTC) ::You make some good points, but the problem is that it's all speculative. I'm sure that if someone wanted to, they could come up with a number of things that might suggest he was in some other house. In the absence of other information, I think we have to stick with the solid piece of evidence that we have, that he was shown wearing Ravenclaw Quidditch robes. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:22, July 12, 2013 (UTC) :::Since we're talking about his house, though, I do think we should slap a "possibly" onto it. As Hunnie Bunn pointed out, the picture shows an adult Lockhart; it could easily be as much of a staged forgery as many of Lockhart's other portraits, such as the one of him with a knocked-out troll. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 23:28, July 12, 2013 (UTC) ::::I suppose I'd endorse having a "possibly" next to it, given that you can rarely be sure of anything when it comes to Lockhart. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:31, July 12, 2013 (UTC) Age So Pottermore has quite generously released a biography of Gilderoy Lockhart. I have a question, though: it says that in his school days he created a spell to project his own face into the air "in imitation of the Dark Mark". Is it just the way it's phrased, or does that imply the Dark Mark had already come into use by then, and thus that he was attending Hogwarts during the 1970s? We know he couldn't have attended any later than that because he attended more than one decade before Harry Potter. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 01:40, October 3, 2013 (UTC) :Actually, my reading of the text is more definite: that precisely a decade had passed between Lockhart leaving school and being appointed DADA teacher (it says that "within a decade" he had preformed the listed tasks, and then directly goes on to discuss his appointment at Hogwarts, which to me implies a passage of ten years). This would place his date of birth as 1963, if my math is correct. This places him at Hogwarts during the 70s, which fits with your deduction. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 03:14, October 3, 2013 (UTC) ::Methinks, then, that he was born 26 January, 1965 (1993-10=1983, 1983-7=1976, 1976-11=1965 - he graduated in 1983, began in 1976 when he was eleven, and thus was born in 1965). --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 23:52, October 9, 2013 (UTC) Spellcrafter He is a spell inventor. It was confirmed on Pottermore that he invented a spell that resembeled the Dark Mark, showing his face on the sky. Boggart I don't have the LEGO game to confirm this, but the "Boggart" page says his Boggart is Voldemort, while on his page it's listed as being "Cornish Pixies". Which is right? --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 00:44, December 17, 2013 (UTC) :Bumping. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 02:51, December 31, 2013 (UTC) Artist? Where does it say Lockhart's an artist? Kaesy Mereida Rowle (talk) 04:34, August 14, 2014 (UTC) The fraud: is it known whether the fact that he was a fraud ever became common knowledge? I mean, he DID recieve fan mail after his admittance to St. Mungo's, and if everyone knew that he had stolen credit from more capable witches and wizards, wouldn't he have lost all of his fans? Is it possiible that the truth were never published in any newspaper and that the only one who knew for certain how he became famous were Dumbledore and the trio? Ninclow 21:53, April 2, 2015 (UTC) Birth date Is it possible that Gilderoy Lockhart born earlier than 1964? This Pottermore article writes that there decades between Harry and him, which would support a longer time (probably more than 20 years).https://www.pottermore.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/gilderoy-lockhart%7C https://www.pottermore.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/gilderoy-lockhart Thanks R.Hood. (talk) 19:32, August 12, 2016 (UTC) : The line from you mentioned is Lockhart " had visualized for himself an entrance into Hogwarts not unlike the one that Harry Potter experienced, decades later." It would depend if 1.6 decades (Harry in 1991 - Lockhart in 1975 = 16 years) counts as decades or if it must be two or more. : The exact quote being used for his birth year - "Within a decade of leaving school, Lockhart had achieved bestseller status with his series of autobiographical books and a reputation as a world-class defender against the Dark Arts." It then goes on to discuss he awards and then Dumbledore recruiting him for Hogwarts. To me, this doesn't read as exactly 10 years from graduation to appointment, but has some looseness on both sides (9 years is within a decade to become famous, and maybe a few years passed after this decade elapsed before he started teaching at Hogwarts). Unless there is more direct evidence (any details of his time at Hogwarts as a student perhaps?) it feels like a circa 1964 is more in order to me. --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:02, August 12, 2016 (UTC) ::Lockhart's fact file here (scroll down) gives his birthdate as 26 January 1964, though. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 21:05, August 12, 2016 (UTC) ::: Well that settles it :) Ref updated. --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:29, August 12, 2016 (UTC) Why is canon canon - except when I ''specifically document it? ''We've been over this again and again - no evidence they met, no evidence the spell worked Are you kidding me? Their meeting, how Cecil Lee learned the spell and later used it effeciently was established in Hogwarts Mystery. Since when is the game not canon? Maester Martin (talk) 01:45, February 12, 2019 (UTC) :Please provide the video of the game that says they met and Cecil learned it directly from Lockhard. --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:47, February 12, 2019 (UTC) FIne. Here Maester Martin (talk) 02:06, February 12, 2019 (UTC) :That's 1 hour and 38 minutes long. Have a time stamp where it is said? --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:07, February 12, 2019 (UTC) ::^ yes, and no, that the clip doesn't really prove too much (imo). ::TBH, I'm not sure if trying to "interpret it", is "trying too hard". https://youtu.be/CpLBnzzC7t8?t=1317 I didn't really question it, but I suppose one can try to argue that, by "I'll teach you a spell I learned from the most courageous and gifted wizard of our time... ... Gilderoy Lockhart!" it doesn't necessarily mean he actually directly learn the spell from Lockhart, and can be from his book... But I personally think that's... like trying too hard lol. The convo to me, Cecil def made it sounded like he was on speaking terms with Lockhart, but that's just me. Oh, I have my doubts about the spell actually working, given Lockhart's track record. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 02:08, February 12, 2019 (UTC) :Sorry - mobile didn't recognize the time stamp. Saying that you learned something from an author doesn't mean they taught you in person. I've learned a lot from Rowling but haven't met her (yet? ;) --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:15, February 12, 2019 (UTC) ::Ah, the timing for the start of the quote is "21:57", in addition, when the spell was actually used (right before the GIF available on HPW) is "27:21"; I'm like super confused as to how it can be seen as "later used it efficiently", what part of "Uh oh..." isn't clear enough? lol But yeah, that being said, I think this entire achievement is HM's worst execution as of now. The fact that it's full moon and they aren't all transformed at the same time is quite bogus. (Fenrir Greyback and Chiara Lobosca) I must have missed some info if resisting to transform is actually canon. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 02:22, February 12, 2019 (UTC) Ironyak1: ''' : It's called subtext.. : (Not 'just read his book and see for yourself', but 'ask him', as in 'talk to him, like I have!') : (Again, not 'said in his book,' but 'says' as in, repeatedly, as in, they've spoken at least twice) : There is nothing about being an author that prevents Lockhart from going out and about to meet fans. :An indirect confirmation is still a confirmation. '''Sammm: :You must have misunderstood the context: When the MC aks Cecil if he has used it before, he explains that he has indeed used it successfully, more than once, but he didn't manage to cure werewolves with it, like Lockhart claimed to be able to, he could only turn them temporarily back to human form. The "later used it efficiently" part were describing the time between when Cecil first learned the spell and the werewolf attack at Hogwarts, those times it has been established he used it in the field. :As for 'uh oh', that's obvious. :Cecil had two things going against him when he tried to use the spell against Grayback: :#Grayback was in human form, making the spell useless. :#In the heat of the moment, he cast it at a distance rather than up close with his wand to the werewolf's throat like Cecil usually would have had to do, since he used it successfully before, which likewise made the spell useless. :All this said, I agree, it's bogus, but it's in the game, and it's one of the reasons why the spell didn't work. But obviously, it did ''work, since it had a wand movement, and a magical effect. It wasn't as if nothing happened, like other nonsense spells presented in canon, like ''Peskipiksi Pesternomi ''and ''Maximus Confidencia. Maester Martin (talk) 02:41, February 12, 2019 (UTC) ::Oh! I did miss it! "but when I cast it, it only temporarily returns a werewolf to human form." For some reason, my brain kept skipping this sentence, and automatically made assumptions that after "Well, not all of us are as gifted as Gilderoy Lockhart… He says he always casts the spell perfectly," Cecil was going to admit that it never worked when he did it, this is my bad. Oops. =P ::I don't see why Cecil would outright lie, so from this quote alone, I suppose this spell can at least temporarily returns a werewolf to human form. ::FYI, I don't think the whole "wand movement, and a magical effect" is a good argument to bring up in the future: as demonstrated by Seamus Finnigan with Eye of rabbit, harp string hum, turn this water into rum.--Sammm✦✧(talk) 02:59, February 12, 2019 (UTC) The difference is that Seamus Finnigan messes up trying to cast a spell he has never gotten to work, Cecil Lee simply performed a spell we know ''he can cast without fail under the wrong conditions. Maester Martin (talk) 03:19, February 12, 2019 (UTC) :Perhaps Lockhart said these things in a letter, as he and Cecil were corresponding. Or maybe Lockhart said them at a book premiere. There are an enumerable contexts that Lockhart could have made his statements without him having to meet and teach Cecil. As such we are left with, "according to Cecil, Lockhart said such and such ...". :If you watch the entire level involving Cecil Lee, it is shown again and again that he is inept at his jobs and more than a bit daft (talk to Hooch because it reminds me of pooch, raiding or um inspecting the kitchens, etc, etc) Even when the player directly asks him if they cast the spell right, he says "I have no idea.' As such he is not a reliable witness, leaving us with 'Cecil claims that...' type information. There is also the issue that werewolves turn back into humans on their own of course, without any spell casting needed. There is never any clear proof given that the spell works and the person making the claims is a dubious source. :This has all been repeatedly discussed. --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:54, February 12, 2019 (UTC) '''Perhaps Lockhart said these things in a letter, as he and Cecil were corresponding. Or maybe Lockhart said them at a book premiere. There are an enumerable contexts that Lockhart could have made his statements without him having to meet and teach Cecil. ' Ironyak1, you know - with all due respect and all - instead of continuing to dismiss canonical information because you and Seth are, admirably enough, it should be said, keeping to this trend of being so creative that you are continiously making these weird, subjective leaps into how things are supposedly always "open to interpretatin" that so often marks the flexibility of mind found in good writers of fanfiction, what if we for once just try to base this on what is actually ''being said? If we look at the choice of words, what do they imply based on ''context, and what don't ''they? If you correspond with someone over a letter, and you are making a reference to something stated in one, is the ''natural thing to do to say 'yes, this is the case because he/she told me so in this letter I got/just write and ask him yourself if you don't believe me", or would you say, "Yes, this is the case, just ask him yourself if you don't believe me", which is clearly ''indicative of a ''verbal ''dialouge? If you have even the tiniest fraction of an understanding how communication occurs/works, the answer to this question should be ''obvious as far as intellectual honesty is concerned. Hence, instead of going "maybe this" or "maybe that", just once, can we - P''lease. Simply.'' T''ry. To. ''Not ''assume a character means literally ''everything other than what their doalouge outright indicates?' We ''know ''Lockhart meets fans outside book signings and sometimes even visits their homes, and considering it is completely in character for Lockhart to make a publicity stunt out of meeting and teaching a member of the Werewolf Capture Unit to seem ever more impressive, and completely ''out ''of character for him to let the opportunity to do so slip between his fingers, I'd say there is a pretty ''strong ''argument to be made for their actual meeting, on top of - you know, what is actually said by Cecil. '''As such we are left with, "according to Cecil, Lockhart said such and such ...".' By that logic, we should dismiss Dumbledore's comment on how he had removed five werewolves from Hagrid's hut, because "according to Dumbledore, he did such and such...". Nothing about Cecil being a humerously silly even remotely implies he is a dishonest person, or a person who suffer from a complete ''cognitive dissonance and just ''invent ''stuff out of thin air about his own experiences as a werewof hunter. Like, for example, using the Homorphus Charm successfully to turn werewolves temporarily back to humans in the past/having captured so many werewolves that he has "lost count" by the time he arrives to help out at Hogwarts. '''If you watch the entire level involving Cecil Lee, it is shown again and again that he is inept at his jobs and more than a bit daft (talk to Hooch because it reminds me of pooch, raiding or um inspecting the kitchens, etc, etc) ' I have. I have also addressed this earlier. Hopefully this is the last time: The fact that Jam City produced a character that was intended to be funny, are in no shape or form an indication of genuine incompetence. Yes, he has, for a lack of a better word, a "bumbling" sort of personality, (a word that has also been used on this wiki to describe Slughorn, who isn't actually incompetent either). He was capable of identifying werewolf hair and saliva when he sees it, he can smell ''that there has been a werewolf in the Charms classroom recently, and when push came to shove, ''practically speaking, when the werewolves attacked a second time, yes, he used the Homorphus Charm incorrectly, but - so what? That proves nothing other than the fact that, in the heat of the moment, he forgot himself and performed the spell incorrectly/under conditions where it had no effect. Immediately thereafter, however, if you check the video again, he was set upon by two grown werewolves, and since he weren't injured afterwards, the only conclusion that can ''be made based on that was that ''within the narritive, he fended off his attackers and, once they retreated back to their pack leader proceeded to capture Fenrir Grayback with a single spell. And the reason it is more ''notable that he fended off the werewolves than for the player to do it, is that ''his ''emerging from that encounter unscratched wasn't part of a game mechanic that ''necessarily ''would be set up so that you could beat them because - well, your character can't be killed without a giant backlash from the gamers, it was part of the ''narritive, meaning that rather than being a "low-level game mechanic werewolf", like we face in the "duel", he dealt with two werewolves that are every bit as dangerous as werewolf are otherwise described as in canon. It's like Lyall driving away Grayback from their house with 'a number of powerful curses', only Cecil fended off two werewolves, not one, (if less savage ones). Suddenly - he isn't so incompetent after all, now is he? Although I admit I missed the part where he "inspected the kitchen" - where was that? xD Even when the player directly asks him if they cast the spell right, he says "I have no idea.' As such he is not a reliable witness, leaving us with 'Cecil claims that...' type information. If you walk up to Madam Pomfrey and cast Episkey ''out in thin air with no injury to mend (in which case, nothing would happen), she wouldn't have had any idea if the spell was cast right either, since there were no result to inspect that would allow her to verify if it was correctly used or not. Doesn't mean Madam Pomfry's an "unreliable witness", now does it? '''There is also the issue that werewolves turn back into humans on their own of course, without any spell casting needed. ' That's... Not an issue, that's how lycantrophy works in Harry Potter. Full moon = Werewolf form. Not full moon = Human form. There is nothing about the Homorphus Charm reversing the transformation without curing the condition that causes the transformations to happen that even come close to contradict canon. There is never any clear proof given that the spell works and the person making the claims is a dubious source. No it isn't. Two people talk about the Homorphus Charm, and both are reliable sources for the spell: Gilderoy Lockhart: He does not pull his claims out of his ear and expect them to be believed, he steals credit for real life accomplishments and spices it up with a "wealth of invented detail" to make them seem even more ''incredible. But that's all: He makes 'his' feats of bravery seem more incredible, he does not make them seem like they would be above and beyond the abilities of any wizard to achieve, and he wouldn't make claims that contradict what actual experts know to be true or false. For example, he might have told Cecil Lee that the charm could cure werewolves. Would he have claimed that in his book? Well - no. He woudn't. And he ''couldn't have done that, because there is no cure to lycantrophy, which Lockhart would necessarily have to keep in mind while writing his book. It is one thing for him to make a bold ass assertion in front of a single, somewhat gullible individual like Cecil with a flashy smile and a wink, but socially inept and publicity-hungry as he was, Lockhart is not dumb enough to expose himself by spreading stories of things that cannot possibly ''be true to the masses, since a part of those masses includes an educated and literate audience who would be able to catch him in the lie immediately, resulting in his exposure long before Dumbledore ever got the chance to hire him as a teacher. The only way in which Lockhart could possibly succeed in his scheme, under ''any ''circumstances, was if the claims he made was, while exaggerated, above all ''believable. The second they weren't, Lockhart ran the risk of his secret being exposed if people began to look to closely at the legitimacy of his claims, so they had to sound incredible, but not unbelievable. In other words, if Lockhart says the Homorphus Charm exist, it exist, it was just somebody else who used it against the Wagga Wagga Werewolf than his book would have the reader believe. Cecil Lee: '''As a highly trained member of the Werewlf Capture Unit, he would know if it didn't work and wouldn't have claimed to have used it successfully in the past if he hadn't. As a Lockhart fan boy, he would also have lamented that he failed to get the spell to work at all, which would, to Cecil, be like failing Lockhart himself. '''This has all been repeatedly discussed. And I suspect this won't be the last, if the norm continues to be that every other edit or comment I make about recently established canon is immediately undone so quickly as to seem like it is done by reflex, and I'm being accused of speculation so frequently as to the claim seeming indicative of being something of a default position people here have simply because ''it comes from me as opposed to anyone else. Which is very much the impression I have been left with after I came back. Maester Martin (talk) 13:17, February 12, 2019 (UTC) : If your edits weren't "interpreting subtext" to invent scenarios then we wouldn't have any reason to have this same conversation for the umpteenth time. What isn't said, just isn't said. Whether it's "Of course he is! Just ask him" (he said so in his letter, he said so in his book, he told me so when we met, he wouldn't lie, etc, etc, etc) or any other possibility. Just because you feel one of an innumerable possible implied statements makes sense, does not mean it is the singular truth. Similarly, we have no idea how Cecil escaped the werewolves - they appear just to return to Greyback's side when he is defeated. There is literally nothing shown demonstrating that Cecil's did a thing to escape them. Again, please only add to articles what is directly stated in a source, free from deep interpretations of the possible context being spun into an "undeniable fact". --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:56, February 12, 2019 (UTC) 1) I don't add subjective interpretation to this equation, I simply point to the subtext and wait for a response. Please stop projecting. 2) If Cecil Lee did nothing, he'd be dead or gnawled half to death. I have began to wonder whether we are actually fans of the same franchise anymore, but werewolves in the Harry Potter universe, have no control over themselves once transformed and instinctively attacks humans on sight. Being were''wolves, however, they're still pack animals, so when in the presence of the alpha male, (Grayback), they might wait for permission to attack, but when those two went after Cecil, they had that permissin. Cecil Lee had a wand, and nothing prevented him from using it to defend himself. The werewolves just standing around him, not doing something, would not happen and be completely and utterly contradicting canon. 3) And you are not going to address the other ''evdience I presented to show how you've been underrating Cecil Lee, are you? *Sigh*. FIne. Whatever. Do as you like, you're the admin. Maester Martin (talk) 23:40, February 12, 2019 (UTC) Math: Jacob was expelled pre- Halloween 1981. He must have been 16 or 17 at the time, given the rumor about him joining Voldemort, in a SQ with Sir Nicolas, the last time students were trapped in portraits was ten years ago. Y5 - 10 = 1978-1979 school year, at which point Gilderoy Lockhart was still attending the school ''and ''other curses had ''also ''been unleashed previously. And - who else? The Marauders, Snape and Lily attended from 1971 to 1978, even if Jacob were younger then them, (which at most would be a year or two younger), they would definitively have been present to experience ''some ''of the curses, if not all. Dirk Cresswell attended Hogwarts from 1972 to 1979, he would have been rounding off his school career at the time. Maester Martin (talk) 06:58, May 10, 2019 (UTC) :It does not necessarily follow that one has to be 16 or 17 to join Voldemort. Either way, details about Jacob's timeline ought to be fully clarified (and properly sourced) in the proper article before we start adding it to articles which are tangentially related. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| '''Seth Cooper' ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 01:23, May 11, 2019 (UTC) Uh - actually, it does ''necessarily follow that you need to be 17/17+ to join Voldemort, even if the idea of a teenie tiny 12 year old (for example) joining Voldemort ''weren't laughably moronic. We have canon examples of members of the Order of the Phoenix rejecting the idea that Draco was a Death Eater because he was only 16. People, mind you, with a direct access to information about how Voldemort and his followers recruits new members to their ranks through Snape. And even if that ''hadn't been the case, Seth, which ''it is, it's still a fact that Jacob was expelled in 1981. Anyone and everyone who was a student at that year would have experienced at least one ''of these many curses that plauged Hogwarts throughout Jacob's magical education from start to expulsion. Maester Martin (talk) 18:54, May 11, 2019 (UTC) ::... which is why I'm telling you to clarify, source, and list all available canon evidence on the subject in proper article before starting edit wars in articles that are barely related to it... It isn't hard to realise this convo should be had, if at all, on Talk:Jacob (Hogwarts student), not here. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| '''Seth Cooper' ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 19:12, May 11, 2019 (UTC) ::: There was never a given age limit for becoming a Death Eater. Voldemort and the Death Eaters weren't known for being good people and having good values. The Order of the Phoenix were good people who had good values and naturally found it absurd Draco would be a Death Eater at age 16. But remember they were wrong about that - he was a Death Eater! The Order having "direct access to information about how Voldemort and his followers recruits new members to their ranks" failed them. ::: I doubt Voldemort would say "no, the legal age is 17". Experience could prove a hinderance but if were going down the speculation route (again), Jacob obviously had valuable knowledge about the Cursed Vaults that could have proved useful to Voldemort at whatever age he was. Besides, including this in Lockhart's page when insofar, he has no known connection to any of the events feels a bit redundant but to each their own. - Kates39 (talk) 19:19, May 11, 2019 (UTC) There was never a given age limit for becoming a Death Eater. Voldemort and the Death Eaters weren't known for being good people and having good values. No... What they were ''known for, however, was trying to take over the wizarding world. And for such a cause, people who aren't so old as to know enough or be skilled enough to be able to contribute to that end in a productive manner or otherwise carry the potential to be detrimental to that quest, were either not entrusted service to Voldemort or killed as a possible obstacle. Which is what canon tells us. '''The Order of the Phoenix were good people who had good values and naturally found it absurd Draco would be a Death Eater at age 16'.' But remember they were wrong about that - he was a Death Eater! The Order having "direct access to information about how Voldemort and his followers recruits new members to their ranks" failed them.' Of course it did, because letting 16 year olds join the ranks isn't common practice, and were hence outside of their frame of reference, since something like this would've been beyond Snape's experience prior to it happening to Draco. Not counting Barty Crouch Jr., but he was the son of the Head of MLE and was useful enough to recruit young. After Lucius was imprisoned and their family's influence in the Ministry severed, well, the Order wouldn't have any reason to think Voldemort had a motive to permit a 16 year old like Draco join, and those who was in the original Order would've had good reason to think Barty's case was a complete and utter isolated incident. Which is further evidenced by how even Narcissa, the wife of Voldemort's former second-in-command, was shocked by this, and correctly predicted that Voldemort were putting Draco up to fail to punish Lucius. Remember Draco's bio on Pottermore? How Draco was relegated to the status of a mere school boy by his father's comrades, at the time not even considered or treated as if his potential future career as another comrades to be a topic. I doubt Voldemort would say "no, the legal age is 17". No, but he would say; "What? I am here, planning my next scheme, and you are interrupting me by suggesting I let someone who is scarcely more than a child with no extraordinary abilities and no apparent usefulness to the cause join, for no reason? Crucio!". ' Jacob obviously had valuable knowledge about the Cursed Vaults that could have proved useful to Voldemort at whatever age he was. Besides, including this in Lockhart's page when insofar, he has no known connection to any of the events feels a bit redundant but to each their own. -' If Jacob was just a little kid with knowledge Voldemort wanted, he'd abduct the kid, force it out of him and kill him so that he couldn't tell people so they knew that he knew said valuable info. He wouldn't let him join. Death Eaters has to be useful, after all. Also - No one ''ever mentioned in canon who don't appear in the game has any known connection to the events in the game, and that's not exclusive to Lockhart. Because neither the events, or the vaults that caused them, were even thought of or had become a part of canon yet, at the time they were originally established. As long as we count HM as canon, however, ''that's ''what we have to go on. Do they timelines match? Well, they were part of the events. Maester Martin (talk) 19:56, May 11, 2019 (UTC) : You have no idea what Voldemort would have done to Jacob if he wanted to join. And you don't know the complete inner-workings of the Death Eaters. I won't have the same, never-ending long argument about differing interpretations and speculation again, but Seth and I understood it one way and you understood it another. That's because there is nothing that can tell us clearly what joining the Death Eaters entails for everyone and nothing tells us yet what even happened to Jacob, but no doubt you will continue to think you do know. : Like Seth said, you need to put together a coherent source that verifies what you say. You need the precise wording of what was said in the game and when it was said (what chapter, what SQ it was in). And I think this discussion should ideally continue to take place on Jacob's talkpage or the Death Eaters, not Lockhart's if it is going to continue. - Kates39 (talk) 20:47, May 11, 2019 (UTC) We know more than Seth's willing to acknowledge because he has a completely weired way of using the word "speculation" and "assumption" and a tendency to treat fiction like non-fiction, but whatever ''bottom line is: Lockhart did ''attend Hogwarts around the same time as Jacob, and he ''would ''have been a student during the time when at least ''some ''of the curses were unleashed due to Jacob's tampering. Maester Martin (talk) 20:58, May 11, 2019 (UTC) :We all know Seth has this weird tendency to use basic logic and to refrain from making canonical leaps of faith. But that's neither here nor there; if there's nothing else remotely related to the subject of this article to be said, this conversation is '''over'. I pointed out already that this is off-topic, and I needn't point it out again. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 21:16, May 11, 2019 (UTC) Missed the last half of my response there, did you Seth? Maester Martin (talk) 23:17, May 11, 2019 (UTC)